WE ARE only a few days into 2014 but the centenary of the start of the First World War, which will be marked this summer, has already started causing controversy.

The centenary of the start of the First World War will be marked this summer [ALAMY]

For an event that transformed the world, that wiped out many of the brightest and best of an entire generation and the consequences of which remain with us today, the First World War has always been strangely misunderstood.

Now Education Secretary Michael Gove has kicked off the year with a blistering attack on the myth peddled by "Leftwing academics" and TV programmes that the war was a "misbegotten shambles".

It's a startling but unsurprising intervention. Startling because it is so unusual to hear any view of the war that doesn't regard it as a disaster of which we should all be ashamed. And unsurprising because the education secretary is never afraid to take on the Left-wing consensus no matter how entrenched it may be.

When it comes to consensus there are few more deeply ingrained in the British psyche than the idea of the First World War as an appalling and unnecessary horror. Just think of Blackadder. Blackadder is a useful indicator of how warped our view has become. It is sometimes difficult to remember that it is a comedy rather than a documentary - not least because it is used as a teaching aid in some schools.

It's no wonder the view of the war as nothing but a mass slaughter ordered by an incompetent and foolish upper class holds such sway.

All wars are tragic. But if some are more tragic than others then a war that killed more than 16 million people can only be described as unspeakable in its horror. That is one reason why the view of the First World War as an unnecessary horror is so dominant.

So many lives squandered, according to this view, by an out of touch, even out of its mind elite which cared not a jot for its fellow countrymen.

No one - certainly not Mr Gove - is trying to downplay that horror. The point is to put it in its proper context and leave the caricature behind.

More recently that view of the war has been joined by the modern fetish against ever apportioning blame for anything: the idea that when a tragedy happens we are somehow all responsible. You only have to look at the words of Culture Secretary Maria Miller last year when she introduced the Government's plans for the centenary.

This summer there will be country-wide candlelit vigils and a service at Westminster Abbey with a final candle extinguished at 11pm - when our ultimatum to Germany passed in 1914. Every state school will be given funds so it can send children to see the battlefields.

That's all good. But at no point did Mrs Miller mention any notion that Germany might actually be to blame for the war. It's as if - ridiculously - by being honest about Germany in the past we are somehow insulting our present-day German allies.

Michael Gove attacks the Left-wing consensus on the First World War [PA]

The facts are clear. Germany under the Kaiser was seeking to dominate Europe. Not the same sort of domination as it sought under Hitler but an equally unambiguous aim of domination. Mrs Miller thinks it is important that we are "not judgmental" and "strike the right tone" between the appropriate task of recognising soldiers' sacrifices - on all sides - and false notions of national pride and blame.

In some ways it's unfair to single her out for criticism. She might be the minister responsible for the commemorations but all she's doing is following the received wisdom that it's wrong to apportion blame and it was a pointless war.

That's why it is now an orphaned war with almost no one willing to accept it served any purpose. Almost. Just as Michael Gove is willing to stand up against the dominant view of the Left-wing education establishment so this week he has cut through the blather of his Cabinet colleague Maria Miller and made clear why the mythology is so wrong.

As he puts it there were important reasons why Germany had to be kept in check: "The ruthless social Darwinism of the German elites, the pitiless approach they took to occupation, their aggressively expansionist war aims and their scorn for the international order all made resistance more than justified."

This was not war for war's sake. It was a fight against a Germany which had to be stopped. By viewing it as something of which we should all be ashamed and for which all sides were equally responsible we undermine our soldiers' sacrifice. By viewing them as cannon fodder we cheapen their sacrifice.

Mr Gove rightly argues: "The war was also seen by participants as a noble cause. Historians have skilfully demonstrated how those who fought were not dupes but conscious believers in king and country, committed to defending the western liberal order." It is invidious to compare fatalities but the Second World War killed more than 60 million people. Yet few would argue it was pointless slaughter.

But while that war has been immortalised with tales of derring-do, the First World War is mainly commemorated by the likes of Blackadder, The Monocled Mutineer and Oh! What A Lovely War.

If the centenary commemorations are to serve any purpose then they should change that perception. Michael Gove has made a start.